Talk:Separation logic

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

$\ast$ and $-\!\!\ast$

Stating " $-\!\!\ast$ is the right adjoint of $\ast$ " is useless without first giving any notion of what $\ast$ and $-\!\!\ast$ are meant to represent. Clconway (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more useless considering there are at least 10 different mathematical meanings of adjoint and it's not clear which is intended. Clconway (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous two comments are outdated, but their author refuses to accept their removal. Apparently on Wikipedia you are not allowed to edit what someone else wrote. Rgrig (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. I am said author. I stipulate that my year-and-a-half-old comments are outdated. ~~Not sure what you mean by my "refus[ing] to accept their removal" since this is the first I've heard of it; maybe there's a bot running to prevent non-self edits on Talk pages.~~ As far as I know, WP practice is to leave outdated comments in place as an archive of the discussion. Clconway (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you're talking about an edit from last March I had forgotten about completely. Yes, I reverted your attempt to remove my comments. See WP:TPOC: "You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

Again, I freely admit my earlier comments are no longer applicable to the article. Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia. Clconway (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence of *

I think the precedence rules of the new operators are not defined. I don't know them, so I cannot write anything about that, but the formula $s,h\cup h'\models P\ast Q\Rightarrow R$ assumes that the user knows if $\ast$ or $\Rightarrow$ has a higher precedence. Lykos42 (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of paragraph on interference freedom

I have lately created a page on Interference freedom. It now says it is an orphan because no other wiki page links to it. I just added this paragraph, not simply to get it out of orphan-status but because I do think it is interesting to see how Interference freedom fits into this whole picture. DavidGries (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, it would make a lot of sense to add a section on extensions for concurrency to the article on Hoare logic. It would probably also make sense to add a section on alternative approaches for concurrency reasoning to this article. Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

∗ {\displaystyle \ast } and − ∗ {\displaystyle -\!\!\ast }

Precedence of *

Introduction of paragraph on interference freedom

$\ast$ and $-\!\!\ast$